Trump acknowledges purpose of meeting with Russian lawyer

a reply to: alphabetaone

So now you're backtracking on your second post where you claimed you didn't say trump admitted to a quid pro quo? It could have been simply misleading information to get your foot in the door, the bait and switch is as old as time. In fact that's what the evidence suggests it was.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

So now you're backtracking in your second post where you claimed you didn't say trump admitted to a quid pro quo? It could have been simply misleading information to get your foot in the door, the bait and switch is as old as time.

Im not backtracking on anything. I AM saying Trump admitted to Trump Jr. obtaining reciprocal product (the product doesn't matter), and as a part of Trump's campaign there is legal exposure.

a reply to: alphabetaone

Reciprocal? What evidence do you have that any reciprocity happened in or around the meeting?

ETA: you've contradicted yourself, so you have to backtrack on one thing or the other (either that trump admitted to a quid pro quo or that you never said he did). Lest you look like a fool.

ETA2: Still waiting for that caselaw to support your understanding of oppo research being a thing of value and not speech, as being the correct interpretation.

Meeting with a foreign national to get dirt on your opponent is not a crime. Using known fraudulent documents to get permission to spy in a FISA court is a crime. Who are the real criminals? Fusion GPS was setting up Trump jr from the get go with the Russian meeting. Trump jr is an idiot for falling victim to the plot. None of this really matters that much to most Americans. The economy, healthcare and national security are all vastly more important to working class American voters that the bs drummed up by sore losers. Notice I said working class. The working class is not out to get Trump, most of those after Trump are the non working class. You know, all the Liberals that get a magical check every month from those of us that actually work. I also need to give an honorable mention that lifelong politicians, Hollywood elite, most socialists, media personalities posing as journalists and unemployed high school dropouts as the rest of the non working class that hates Trump.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

So now you're backtracking in your second post where you claimed you didn't say trump admitted to a quid pro quo? It could have been simply misleading information to get your foot in the door, the bait and switch is as old as time.

Im not backtracking on anything. I AM saying Trump admitted to Trump Jr. obtaining reciprocal product (the product doesn't matter), and as a part of Trump's campaign there is legal exposure.

but he didn't ''obtain'' anything..

?

question - if this meeting is proven to have been setup by the DNC to try and trap the Trump campaign - would you look at it differently?

a reply to: Agit8dChop

a reply to: xpert11

I think they did it for this exact reason. They wanted to be able to say
'' look, they met with xya it proves collusion ''

Perhaps the DNC didn't expect the information to get out that the DNC/DOJ allowed this person to get into the US?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: network dude

All sides in this story are liars. Trumps whole family and his whole campaign and the Russians who attended. Liars every one.

and let me guess, you know the real truth?

a reply to: Bone75

Only because Congress introduced new sanctions and forced trump to sign them. Making it almost impossible for Trump to end the magnitsky act.

a reply to: conscientiousobserver

Trump never had the authority to end the magnitsky act. It's legislation. To undo legislation, the legislature has to remove or revise their legislation. I know details are hard when they break the conspiracy, but they're the truth.

a reply to: FreeDeplorable

Meeting with a foreign national to get dirt on your opponent is not a crime.

Sigh. Please stop repeating this lie.

YES it is ILLEGAL for foreigners to donate to political campaigns, for Americans to solicit donations from foreigners, and for anybody to conspire to violate federal law.

That is exactly what happened. Russians offered the Trump campaign a donation - 'opposition research' (dirt). Trump Jr. solicited that donation in a meeting. The meeting constituted a conspiracy to violate U.S. federal law, specifically 52 U.S. Code § 30121.

52 U.S. Code § 30121 - Contributions and donations by foreign nationals

18 U.S. Code § 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States

a reply to: rnaa

would paying a Russian operative for opposition research, AND GETTING IT, be a crime?

a reply to: UKTruth

You are wrong and are simply furthering a gaslighting operation.

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: alphabetaone

You realize that
A) Jr wasn't part of the campaign

Don't be absurd. Junior was one of his fathers top campaign advisors.

B) your asinine understanding of that law makes all opposition research outside of the US, illegal

No. Only that supplied by 'donation' by foreign nationals.

C) that law applies to the foreign nationals not US citizens

Not true. It makes it a crime for US citizens to solicit donations from foreign nationals.

Here's a nice little article by a law professor who made the same emotional mistake you've made in your interpretation of thing of value, but later reflected on it and realized his obvious mistake.

And here is a little article that details why that law professor is wrong.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: rnaa

would paying a Russian operative for opposition research, AND GETTING IT, be a crime?

In my opinion (and IANAL), contracting with a research company, that is foreign owned or domiciled, to do 'opposition research' is not illegal.

It is NOT a donation, it is a paid contract. The code appears to apply to donations only.

a reply to: Annee

Opinion piece?

O.K., maybe my assumptions are wrong. I figured you for a HRC loving leftist who believes HRC can do no wrong. So......to get to the facts of Uranium One, I went to a leftist media outlet to get their version of the facts.

And now you reject their version of the facts as opinion?

a reply to: rnaa

O.k., so ...........back to this I see.

Obviously you're of the opinion that Trump Jr. committed a "crime" and that possibly Trump Sr. committed a crime.

So what?

You do realize that criminal behavior is the hall mark of all high ranking politicians in the US? Thieving, lying, colluding and conspiring to steal money, power and influence.......ITS WHAT THEY DO! The only difference between one and the other is that many are far more successful than others. I get it, you hate Trump and want to see him get impeached and go to jail for committing some crime. But honestly, if you put Trump in jail............where does it end?

originally posted by: Dfairlite
a reply to: xpert11

It's worth noting that there has never been a case where a judge came even close to ruling that opposition research is a thing of value.

So it is your argument that 'opposition research' has no value? Seriously?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

That's an interesting question.

But lets try out this hypothesis. Let us suppose for the moment that the Russian CIA had highly reliable intel and proof that HRC had accepted bribes and money in the form of donations to the Clinton foundation in exchange for favors to a Russian Oligarch's company...............then the Russians come forward and say.......lift sanctions and we'll give you this dossier. Yea, its a thing of value.

Its also something that every American voter should know about! If there's evidence of high crookery by US Administration officials like the Secretary of State, WE SHOULD ALL KNOW ABOUT THAT!

a reply to: Dfairlite

Let me try this bolding out:
It shall be unlawful for--

(1)  a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make...

Notice it doesn't say anything about a campaign accepting donations? But that's neither here nor there, as the other glaring holes are more than suitable to destroy your argument.

You simply cut off the quotation before it described the illegal activity you say isn't there. And that is very naughty indeed.

There are two (2) parts to the prohibition; one applies to foreign nationals, and the other to anyone, foreign national or US citizen.

Let me try this bolding out:

(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national